Failing To Update A Plan Beneficiary Designation

 

Technically it is not a tax case, but it is so tax-adjacent it might as well be.

Let’s talk about beneficiaries on a retirement account – and, more specifically, an employer-sponsored retirement account.

Carl Kleinfeldt participated in the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. In 2006 he designated his (then) wife – Dena Langdon – as his primary beneficiary.

Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in 2022. The divorce included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is a court order authorizing distribution to the nonparticipating (ex) spouse. The PCA Benefits Center distributed to Langdon as directed.

However, even after the QDRO there is one more step: has the ex-spouse been formally removed as beneficiary?

Kleinfeldt faxed a request to the Benefits Center to remove Langdon from both his health and life insurance as well as his retirement plan. The Benefits Center updated her status on the retirement account to “ex-spouse.” Mind you, this was not the same as removing her as a beneficiary altogether.

Why not?

There were written plan procedures to follow. Kleinfeldt’s fax was a good start but was not quite enough.

You can guess that Kleinfeldt died.

You know that Langdon wanted that retirement money.

You also know the matter went to court.

And we are in legal weeds immediately.

We are talking here about an employer-sponsored plan, which (almost always) makes the plan subject to ERISA.

ERISA in turn uses a “substantial compliance” doctrine when reviewing actions required under a plan document. It is what it sounds like: if you miss a minor clerical step, the law presumes that responsible parties know what was meant and are expected to act accordingly.

The Kleinfeldt Estate argued the substantial compliance doctrine with a white-knuckle grip.

The Court observed that substantial compliance has two steps:

1.  Was there intent to make the change?
2.  Was the attempt to make the change similar (in all material aspects) to the proper procedures required by the plan?

There was no argument about the first test: the fax was clear evidence that Kleinfeldt intended to remove Langdon as a beneficiary.

On to the second test.

The plan documents wanted Kleinfeldt to either (1) call the Benefits Center or (2) update his beneficiary designation online.

The plan documents nowhere stated that he could update beneficiaries by fax.

The Court did not consider this a minor clerical step.

Kleinfeldt did not follow the rules.

Meaning that Langdon won.

And fair had nothing to do with it.

Our case this time was Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan v Langdon, No 25-1859 (7^th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)

Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)